Editorial

The government’s notification of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Amendment Rules, 2026, marks a pivotal step in India’s evolving digital regulatory landscape. Effective from February 20, 2026, these amendments to the 2021 rules explicitly bring AI-generated and synthetically generated information (SGI)—including deepfakes, manipulated audio-visual content, and algorithmically altered media—under formal oversight. This is the first time India has legally defined and regulated such content, defining SGI as artificially created or modified material that appears indistinguishable from real persons or events.

Key provisions include mandatory prominent labelling of synthetic content, embedding persistent metadata and unique identifiers for traceability, and prohibitions on suppressing or removing these markers. Platforms must verify user declarations about AI use, deploy detection tools, and ensure compliance to retain safe harbour protections under Section 79 of the IT Act. Takedown timelines have been drastically shortened: platforms now face a mere 3-hour window (down from 36 hours) to remove unlawful content upon government or court orders, with even tighter deadlines for urgent cases involving non-consensual deepfakes or harmful material.

These measures address legitimate concerns in an era of rampant misinformation, electoral manipulation via deepfakes, non-consensual intimate imagery, and threats to public order. With India’s over one billion internet users and the rapid proliferation of generative AI tools, unchecked synthetic media can amplify hate speech, defame individuals, or undermine democratic processes. The government’s proactive stance aligns with global trends—seen in the EU’s AI Act and US efforts on watermarking—prioritizing transparency and accountability to protect citizens from deception.

However, the amendments raise significant questions about implementation and overreach. The 3-hour takedown requirement is extraordinarily stringent, potentially forcing platforms into automated, error-prone decisions that risk over-censorship of legitimate speech. Critics, including digital rights groups, argue this could chill free expression, especially given past concerns over vague “unlawful content” definitions and selective enforcement. Smaller platforms and messaging apps may struggle with compliance burdens, while global giants like Meta, Google, and X face heightened tensions with the government over content moderation sovereignty.

Balancing innovation with safety is essential. AI’s creative potential—in education, entertainment, and accessibility—should not be stifled by overly punitive rules. The amendments could foster responsible AI deployment if enforced transparently and proportionately, with clear appeal mechanisms and periodic reviews. Yet, without safeguards against misuse, they risk becoming tools for broader online control. Ultimately, these rules reflect India’s ambition to lead in digital governance amid technological disruption. Success will depend on collaborative dialogue between regulators, tech firms, and civil society to refine implementation, ensuring they curb harms without eroding the open internet that has fueled India’s digital growth.

The reported US draft plan for Gaza, which would permit Hamas to retain some small arms during an initial phase of disarmament, represents a pragmatic yet contentious compromise in the ongoing quest for Middle East peace.

As detailed in recent reporting from The New York Times and other outlets, the proposal—crafted by a US-led team including figures like Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, and Nickolay Mladenov—demands that Hamas surrender all weapons capable of striking Israel, such as rockets and long-range munitions. In exchange, the group could keep limited light arms, at least temporarily, as part of a phased process expected to span months or longer. This approach aims to incentivize Hamas’s cooperation by offering a gradual path to demilitarization, potentially tied to broader elements like hostage releases, governance handover to a technocratic Palestinian committee, and eventual reconstruction.

This draft emerges amid fragile ceasefire arrangements from late 2025, now transitioning into a second phase focused on security and rebuilding. The plan’s architects view partial retention of small arms as a realistic starting point, acknowledging Hamas’s entrenched role in Gaza and the risks of demanding immediate total disarmament, which could collapse negotiations or spark renewed violence.

However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently rejected any scenario allowing Hamas to maintain armed capabilities. He has repeatedly insisted that no reconstruction or meaningful progress can occur without the complete disarming of Hamas and the full demilitarization of Gaza, including the destruction of tunnels and offensive infrastructure. Netanyahu’s stance aligns with Israel’s core security imperative: preventing Hamas from regrouping or launching future attacks, as seen in the October 7, 2023, assault. He has emphasized that Hamas’s monopoly on force must end, with only vetted Palestinian security forces—excluding Hamas—authorized to bear arms.

The allowance for small arms raises serious concerns about enforcement and long-term stability. Critics argue it could enable Hamas to preserve influence, intimidate rivals, or rearm covertly, undermining the goal of a demilitarized Gaza. Supporters of the draft counter that a phased, monitored process—potentially involving international oversight, weapons buyback programs, and amnesty incentives—offers the best chance to erode Hamas’s military power without derailing talks. Absolute demands for instant total surrender have historically failed to produce results.

Ultimately, this proposal tests the limits of compromise in a deeply polarized conflict. While the US seeks to advance peace through incremental steps, Israel’s insistence on zero tolerance for an armed Hamas highlights the gap between diplomatic pragmatism and existential security needs. For any deal to endure, it must bridge this divide, ensuring verifiable disarmament that protects Israeli civilians while addressing Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. Without full consensus on ending Hamas’s military role, the path to lasting peace remains fraught with peril.

• SAS Kirmani